MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

house property is occupied as residence by employees or its directors to 18 A.Y.2015-16 enable them to discharge their functions effectively and the letting out is subservient and incidental to the main business of the assessee, such an occupation amounts to an occupation and user of the property by the assessee itself for the purposes of its business. Clearly

M/S. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,JAMMU ( J&K) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

house property and deduction @ 30% of the gross amount is allowable under section 24 of the Income Tax Act, which is prayed to be allowed.” 43. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has observed as under: “4.9 Ground of Appeal No. 2.31 relates to treatment of rental income u/s 24 of the Act and allowance of 30% deduction. There

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. JAMMU DEVELPMENT AUTHORITY,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

house property and deduction @ 30% of the gross amount is allowable under section 24 of the Income Tax Act, which is prayed to be allowed.” 43. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has observed as under: “4.9 Ground of Appeal No. 2.31 relates to treatment of rental income u/s 24 of the Act and allowance of 30% deduction. There

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenav.S. Cit – I Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar Teja Singh Mundri Hall Sri Amritsar Pan:Aants1981K (Appellant) (Respondent)

house) is two-fold : to provide training to the Sikhs in voluntary service and to help banish all distinction of high and low, touchable and untouchable from the Sikhs' minds. b) All human beings, high or low, and of any caste or colour may sit and eat in the Langar. No discrimination on grounds of the country of origin, colour

M/S ACTIVE TOOLS (P). LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, JALANDHAR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor as it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections 69,69A, 69B and 69 treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion etc. and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and sources of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

57,710/-, in spite of providing the cash flow explaining the source of deposit of cash. 4. The Learned CIT A has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case in stating ^ that order passed against the appellant by the Assessing officer is not in pursuance of order passed by CIT u/s 263 and further that the vires

SHRI SUBASH GUPTA,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

house property and other source income by way of bank interest. Apart from above the assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sales of immovable properties and investment in immovable property are held as stock in trade and reflected in audited balance sheet and income tax returns year to year. 4. Return of income filed in regular course

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

house property. (v) The assessee deposited cash of Rs 20,00,000/- during demonetization period and was thus obliged to explain the nature and source of cash credits of Rs 20,00,000/-. Income of Rs. 17,50,000/- only was declared under the head Misc. income. Rs 2.5 lac is not a standard deduction. As per the above mentioned

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

house property. (v) The assessee deposited cash of Rs 20,00,000/- during demonetization period and was thus obliged to explain the nature and source of cash credits of Rs 20,00,000/-. Income of Rs. 17,50,000/- only was declared under the head Misc. income. Rs 2.5 lac is not a standard deduction. As per the above mentioned

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

house property. (v) The assessee deposited cash of Rs 20,00,000/- during demonetization period and was thus obliged to explain the nature and source of cash credits of Rs 20,00,000/-. Income of Rs. 17,50,000/- only was declared under the head Misc. income. Rs 2.5 lac is not a standard deduction. As per the above mentioned

SMT. ASHA CHHABRA,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

house. 2.3 From the foregoing facts, it is held that the assessee has made unexplained investment in purchase of the property as well as in the construction thereon. 3.1 Accordingly, I have reasons to believe that the income of Rs.23,84,500/- ( Rs 18,37,500/-+ Rs.1,47,000/- + Rs. 4,00,000/-) of the assessee has escaped assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), JAMMU vs. ANITA KAPAHI, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

property for the purpose of section 53A of 1882 Act is registered, it shall not have effect for purposes of section 53A of the 1882 Act. (Para 21]" The jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana has clearly upheld the view that the registered document shall carry the legal backing rather than an unregistered photocopy of the document. Further

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

57 ITR 21 (SC); Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Sons v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 573 (SC); CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC). The reference by the ld. Departmental Representative (DR), Sh. Charan Dass, to decisions in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) and S.G. Mercantile Corporation

DASHMESH TIMBER AND FURNITURE HOUSE,AJNALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

57,00,000/- on account of excess stock is not found sustainable and therefore deleted.” 9. Now, the assessee is before the tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal. Challenging the applicability of the deeming provision of section 69/A, on the surrendered cash amounting Rs. 8 lakhs. The Ld AR of the assessee has submitted a short

M/S LORD MAHAVIRA HOMEOP[ATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

57 to 70 I.T.A Nos. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 7 of Paper Book. Relevant pages are 69 to 70, in which, the same view has been taken. Page 71-81 The Amritsar Bench of the ITAT in a judgment placed at pages 71- 81, after considering the arguments from both the sides had considered this issue at length

M/S LORD MAHAVIR HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLAGE & HOSPITAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

57 to 70 I.T.A Nos. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 7 of Paper Book. Relevant pages are 69 to 70, in which, the same view has been taken. Page 71-81 The Amritsar Bench of the ITAT in a judgment placed at pages 71- 81, after considering the arguments from both the sides had considered this issue at length

LORD MAHAVIRA HOMOEOPHATIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

57 to 70 I.T.A Nos. 383, 139 & 125/ASR/2018 & 2020 7 of Paper Book. Relevant pages are 69 to 70, in which, the same view has been taken. Page 71-81 The Amritsar Bench of the ITAT in a judgment placed at pages 71- 81, after considering the arguments from both the sides had considered this issue at length

SHRIMATI RAVINDER BAWA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

57 (Delhi) 22.3 Non–Examination of issue by Assessing Officer does not per se make assessment order prejudicial to interest of revenue for revision under section 263.. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. DIT (2011) 50 DTR 409 (Delhi)(Trib.) 22.4 Order under section 263 passed by the CIT setting aside the assessment order on the ground that